(22-02-2013 03:20 AM)Phaedrus Wrote: And I would argue that you don't understand numbers, nor have a sense of scale.

And I would slap you in the face with a fish for being a fucking moron.

Here's something for scale, it would take us traveling at a realistic speed, around 22,000 years to get to the NEAREST star (after the sun of course).
22,000. Once you get there there is absolutely no guarentee of an earth like planet (and note that Earth hasn't always been so inhabitable). Also note that humans are very fragile. The next star after that is then another 22,000 years.

Well for one I wasn't talking about interstellar travel, which if it turns out to be feasible is likely 200+ years away at the soonest. Probably more like 500 years, and it will be a one-way trip.

But since you brought it up, it's worth noting that 22,000 years is nothing when it comes to the age of the universe, and even if interstellar ships were only launched once every thousand years and took 100,000 years to reach their destination, we would still colonize the entire galaxy within a million years. Sounds like a lot? On a human scale it is. In the grand scheme of things, that's tiny. Any civilization that develops interestellar travel, should eventually colonize the entire galaxy. The fact that this doesn't seem to have happened is called Fermi's Paradox, by the way.

Like I said, no sense of scale. Just because these things aren't achievable in our life times doesn't mean we can't make reasonable deductions and estimations about the future.

By the way, are you still sore at me because my location thread sucks less than yours?

(22-02-2013 03:28 AM)ClydeLee Wrote: I was just watching an episode of The Cosmos... The one on space traveling.

Sagan mentioned there has been an existing design of building giant nuclear powered space stations that can be used to launch ship from space. It has been pretty much put down as laws limiting using nuclear power in space.

He compared the idea to Da Vinci's creation of flying machine designs that just weren't buildable due to the tech but were well designed.

While it might not be close yet, I think the ability is there; coming back.. Probably not

The problem is not the vehical (though it would need to be very large), we certainly have the technology and perhaps the resources to do it.
The problem is the 22,000 years between here and there. The problem is what do we do when we get there. The problem is who's paying for this? nobody benefits from it so nobody will pay for it.
The problem is living on a 'space ship' for 22,000 years. Water, oxygen, fuel, food (though food would be the easiest), medicine etc...

It is not logistically plausable and a stupid fucking idea.

The problem is also sticking to a base for the speed on which we can travel at our current rate.

Nobody would be doing it or paying to do such things in that case. THAT would be a stupid ducking idea but to think the capabilities are too limited by current rates will leave you in stasis forever.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

(22-02-2013 03:32 AM)earmuffs Wrote: The problem is not the vehical (though it would need to be very large), we certainly have the technology and perhaps the resources to do it.
The problem is the 22,000 years between here and there. The problem is what do we do when we get there. The problem is who's paying for this? nobody benefits from it so nobody will pay for it.
The problem is living on a 'space ship' for 22,000 years. Water, oxygen, fuel, food (though food would be the easiest), medicine etc...

It is not logistically plausable and a stupid fucking idea.

Vehicle*

Why would oxygen and water be a problem? Algae lamps for co2 conversion to oxygen, and i don't imagine a water purification system being out of our capabilities.

(22-02-2013 03:25 AM)earmuffs Wrote: And I would slap you in the face with a fish for being a fucking moron.

Here's something for scale, it would take us traveling at a realistic speed, around 22,000 years to get to the NEAREST star (after the sun of course).
22,000. Once you get there there is absolutely no guarentee of an earth like planet (and note that Earth hasn't always been so inhabitable). Also note that humans are very fragile. The next star after that is then another 22,000 years.

Well for one I wasn't talking about interstellar travel, which if it turns out to be feasible is likely 200+ years away at the soonest. Probably more like 500 years, and it will be a one-way trip.

But since you brought it up, it's worth noting that 22,000 years is nothing when it comes to the age of the universe, and even if interstellar ships were only launched once every thousand years and took 100,000 years to reach their destination, we would still colonize the entire galaxy within a million years. Sounds like a lot? On a human scale it is. In the grand scheme of things, that's tiny. Any civilization that develops interestellar travel, should eventually colonize the entire galaxy. The fact that this doesn't seem to have happened is called Fermi's Paradox, by the way.

Like I said, no sense of scale. Just because these things aren't achievable in our life times doesn't mean we can't make reasonable deductions and estimations about the future.

By the way, are you still sore at me because my location thread sucks less than yours?

By your logic I could say we'll have the technolgoy to live on the surface of the sun in the next 100 years and we will be living there within 200. By 250 years into the future you'll be able to buy a house in the suns core.

You can't see into the future so you don't know, and because you don't know I'm 100% correct that this will happen.

Oh, and pigs will fly and we will create a special breed of chinese girl that will shit out cotton candy as she walks along.

(22-02-2013 03:32 AM)earmuffs Wrote: The problem is not the vehical (though it would need to be very large), we certainly have the technology and perhaps the resources to do it.
The problem is the 22,000 years between here and there. The problem is what do we do when we get there. The problem is who's paying for this? nobody benefits from it so nobody will pay for it.
The problem is living on a 'space ship' for 22,000 years. Water, oxygen, fuel, food (though food would be the easiest), medicine etc...

It is not logistically plausable and a stupid fucking idea.

Vehicle*

Why would oxygen and water be a problem? Algae lamps for co2 conversion to oxygen, and i don't imagine a water purification system being out of our capabilities.

If I wanted you as my spell check I will let you know...

I'd like to see you live 22,000 years in complete nothingness with nothing but what you take with you.
Water filter.. are you fucking stupid? What about plants? they use a lot of water. What about people? we don't piss 100% of what we drink, it doesn't just pass through and do nothing...

You can't just filter it, you need to create it because energy (like water or oxygen) is "used up" in the process of things like growth. ie: a baby will need to "use up" energy in order to grow (the energy isn't used up I know, it's transfered).

(22-02-2013 03:53 AM)earmuffs Wrote: If I wanted you as my spell check I will let you know...

I'd like to see you live 22,000 years in complete nothingness with nothing but what you take with you.
Water filter.. are you fucking stupid? What about plants? they use a lot of water. What about people? we don't piss 100% of what we drink, it doesn't just pass through and do nothing...

You can't just filter it, you need to create it because energy (like water or oxygen) is "used up" in the process of things like growth. ie: a baby will need to "use up" energy in order to grow (the energy isn't used up I know, it's transfered).

My mistake, for bringing it up with someone not ready for a real conversation. Just someone that likes to act like a child.

(22-02-2013 03:36 AM)Phaedrus Wrote: Well for one I wasn't talking about interstellar travel, which if it turns out to be feasible is likely 200+ years away at the soonest. Probably more like 500 years, and it will be a one-way trip.

But since you brought it up, it's worth noting that 22,000 years is nothing when it comes to the age of the universe, and even if interstellar ships were only launched once every thousand years and took 100,000 years to reach their destination, we would still colonize the entire galaxy within a million years. Sounds like a lot? On a human scale it is. In the grand scheme of things, that's tiny. Any civilization that develops interestellar travel, should eventually colonize the entire galaxy. The fact that this doesn't seem to have happened is called Fermi's Paradox, by the way.

Like I said, no sense of scale. Just because these things aren't achievable in our life times doesn't mean we can't make reasonable deductions and estimations about the future.

By the way, are you still sore at me because my location thread sucks less than yours?

By your logic I could say we'll have the technolgoy to live on the surface of the sun in the next 100 years and we will be living there within 200. By 250 years into the future you'll be able to buy a house in the suns core.

You can't see into the future so you don't know, and because you don't know I'm 100% correct that this will happen.

Oh, and pigs will fly and we will create a special breed of chinese girl that will shit out cotton candy as she walks along.

edit: It's not personal, it's the topic.

That's an odd fetish, but I won't judge.

Ever heard of extrapolation? Looking at what we have now, looking at where we're going, and drawing the line?

Jules Verne predicted travel to the moon in 1865. In 1969, we got there. In the 1890s Konstantin Tsiolkovsky advocated the use of rockets to reach outer space; in 1957 it happened. In 1945, Arthur Clarke advocated for a global network of communications satellites. Ah... Look up. Both Tsiolkovsky and Clarke advocated the space elevator; and a few years ago we made a massive technological leap that took the idea out of the realm of science fiction and put it in the realm of scientific plausibility. You can look at what we have, look at what we're going, and make predictions. Not 100% accurate, not 100% of the time. But hey, the weather forecast isn't 100% accurate either, but you still listen.

Besides, we already have the technology to get out of the solar system. Orion. As discussed earlier in the topic you did not read. The Super-Heavy Orion is very capable of interstellar travel, if properly designed. Keeping a crew (and/or their descendents) alive for the 40-100 years needed to reach nearby stellar systems at 10% of light speed? There don't seem to be any insurmountable technical hurdles to that.

You're like an angry old man, grumping that all these crazy young people talking about global instantaneous networking and communication are just full of shit... in 1990.

(22-02-2013 03:53 AM)earmuffs Wrote: If I wanted you as my spell check I will let you know...

I'd like to see you live 22,000 years in complete nothingness with nothing but what you take with you.
Water filter.. are you fucking stupid? What about plants? they use a lot of water. What about people? we don't piss 100% of what we drink, it doesn't just pass through and do nothing...

You can't just filter it, you need to create it because energy (like water or oxygen) is "used up" in the process of things like growth. ie: a baby will need to "use up" energy in order to grow (the energy isn't used up I know, it's transfered).

My mistake, for bringing it up with someone not ready for a real conversation. Just someone that likes to act like a child.

Good boy, all you can is admit your mistake, apologise and fuck off.

@Phaedrus, yes and looking forward I can saftely predict that I will slap you in the face with a fish. Because you're wrong. Besides the hurdles I mentioned about water/air/finding an actual inhabital planet, that you haven't addressed there is still the enormus hurdle... who's gonna pay for it? Nobody can benefit from it and it's extremely risky. Not to mention there's no inhabital planet near by except... earth.

And 10% of the speed of light? so.. 30million meters per second? What about small rocks and other debree. It's bad enough when something hits the shuttle now when it's in orbit, you wanna take a fist size rock and fly it at a target moving 30 million meters per second? A flake of paint damages the shuttle in orbit...

Not to mention is 10% the speed of light even possible? certainly not today. That must use a lot of energy.. and over what 40-100 years?
Where are you going to put the fuel? 40-100 years worth of water would already take up most of the room.

I personally think in as little as 100 years we will see the first humanoid shaped robots. These will be controlled either by AI or by having a nervous system from a human being implanted into it. That could remove the need for food and water supplies. The robots wouldnt have to worry about sleep and if a cyborg crew is used then they could probably be put in stasis.

The ship itself could be a huge robot that might not need a crew. Not such a silly thought as we have the mars rover exploring right now as we speak.

The Hadron colliders around the world are getting more and more data every day, we may make discoveries that turn physics on its head, opening up new possibilites and making our current technology and energy propulsion systems look puny.

I understand where you are coming from muffs, however I would recommend going on youtube and watching some old clips of the BBC programme "tommorows world"... they tried to guess the future, they were all way off as we did more than they could of ever dreamed.

I feel so much, and yet I feel nothing.
I am a rock, I am the sky, the birds and the trees and everything beyond.
I am the wind, in the fields in which I roar. I am the water, in which I drown.

(22-02-2013 04:01 AM)Aspchizo Wrote: My mistake, for bringing it up with someone not ready for a real conversation. Just someone that likes to act like a child.

Good boy, all you can is admit your mistake, apologise and fuck off.

@Phaedrus, yes and looking forward I can saftely predict that I will slap you in the face with a fish. Because you're wrong. Besides the hurdles I mentioned about water/air/finding an actual inhabital planet, that you haven't addressed there is still the enormus hurdle... who's gonna pay for it? Nobody can benefit from it and it's extremely risky. Not to mention there's no inhabital planet near by except... earth.

And 10% of the speed of light? so.. 30million meters per second? What about small rocks and other debree. It's bad enough when something hits the shuttle now when it's in orbit, you wanna take a fist size rock and fly it at a target moving 30 million meters per second? A flake of paint damages the shuttle in orbit...

Not to mention is 10% the speed of light even possible? certainly not today. That must use a lot of energy.. and over what 40-100 years?
Where are you going to put the fuel? 40-100 years worth of water would already take up most of the room.

Thanks muffs for showing you didn't read the thread at all, even the first page.

Nuclear Pulse Propulsion, or the "Orion" project allows for a ship with a payload in the millions of tons with a maximum speed estimated to be 10% of c, with the highest thrust of any available propulsion technology, and one of the highest specific impulses (that is to say, fuel efficiency). And it's doable with 1950s technology. The *only* notable downside is that you can't launch it from earth. Well, you can. You just don't want to.

With a payload in the millions of tons, all of your concerns cease to matter. You can carry a dozen people with enough food and water for 100 years without recycling; or with recycling you could carry enough for a hundred people or more, depending on how efficient your system is. You can carry thousands of tons of water to be stored around the living areas as a radiation shield. You can carry enough fuel to reach 10% of c, and possibly even enough to turn around and come home. And once you reach cruising velocity, you can turn the ship around and use the pusher plate as a shield against micrometeorites and relativistic particles.

"Fly using nuclear bombs? IMPOSSIBRU!!!"

Sorry, we did our homework. A small scale of Orion using conventional explosives flew 150ft into the air using only five TNT blasts, and landed safely on its parachute with no damage. Engineering proposals were drafted and feasibility studies done. The Orion team ran through a number of prototype iterations, addressing issues as they found them. And it flew:

Orion would be rated as TRL 4 or 5, better than most other unconventional launch systems, and since ramscoops were proven unfeasible is the most likely candidate for interstellar travel.

The economics is the most daunting obstacle, and even that isn't a big deal. We launch probes first, muffs. Unmanned robotic probes with a whole science lab's worth of sensors. With even a small Orion, you can carry a huge scientific payload. Right now the cost is prohibitive; but the cost now is lower than it would have been in 1950 or 70 or 90. The cost will be lower in the future. When the relative cost has dropped to around the same point as today's planetary missions (or perhaps sooner; relative cost of the Apollo project?) then if our society has retained any interest in space at all, we will send probes. And if a habitable planet is found? Putting people on it will be a prestige project just like Apollo was. What economic benefit did Apollo give? They did it anyway.

The *only* major technical obstacle in the way of an Orion ship is launch. You can't launch it from earth, the damage to the environment would be too severe. It has to be launched from space, preferably outside geosynchronous orbit. By how do you get all of those millions of tons into orbit to begin with?